Tax on imported raw silk and silk yarn upheld after constitutional challenges under Articles 14, 301 and 304 failed.

Karnataka HC upheld the amended tax entry on imported raw silk and silk yarn, finding no discrimination under Article 14 because the classification between imported and indigenous goods had a rational basis and served a legitimate objective. It also held that the levy did not directly or immediately restrict trade so as to infringe Article 301, since a tax burden alone does not amount to a trade barrier. Further, Article 304 was found inapplicable because the protection addressed goods imported from other States, not foreign imports, and Article 304(b) was not attracted on the facts. The writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the levy on imported raw silk and silk yarn under the amended schedule entry was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the levy offended the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed by Article 301 of the Constitution of India; (iii) whether the levy was hit by Article 304 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the levy on imported raw silk and silk yarn under the amended schedule entry was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The classification between imported raw silk and silk yarn and indigenous raw silk and silk yarn was treated as a distinction based on the nature and source of the goods. In taxation matters, greater latitude is available to the Legislature in making classifications and granting exemptions. A levy is not arbitrary merely because a different rate or exemption is provided for one class of goods when the classification has a rational basis and serves a legitimate object such as protection of local industry.

Conclusion: The levy was held not to be discriminatory and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and this issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the levy offended the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed by Article 301 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Taxation measures can fall within the scope of Article 301 only where they directly and immediately restrict or impede the free flow of trade. A levy that does not bar movement of goods and does not operate as a direct restraint on trade is not hit by Article 301 merely because it imposes a tax burden. The imported goods were treated as a separate category, and the tax did not amount to a direct or immediate restriction on inter-State or intra-State movement.

Conclusion: The levy was held not to violate Article 301 of the Constitution of India, and this issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether the levy was hit by Article 304 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 304(a) prohibits discriminatory taxation against goods imported from other States when similar goods manufactured or produced in the State are differently burdened. The Court treated the constitutional protection as relating to inter-State movement and not to goods imported from outside the country. Since the levy was on imported foreign raw silk and silk yarn and not on goods imported from other States, Article 304(a) was held inapplicable. Article 304(b) was also not attracted on the facts found.

Conclusion: The levy was held not to offend Article 304 of the Constitution of India, and this issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The challenged tax entry was upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.

---